NOVEMBER,  1908 
ND 


MILLAIS 


PRICE,  20  cent; 


ICIJ 

W3 


UC-NRLF 


B    M    5fi7    Efib 


J§sudilftpTitl)lu^ 


3ateiianD<iuild<lotnpany, 
42<]f)aiinc!!:^M 


r 


"  rn 

H 

W  u 

H  . 


O    H 

a?! 


335782 


MASTKKS  IN    AllT     l>LA'iK   II 

PHOTOGRAPH    BY    MANSELL    &   CO. 


[4-7] 


:millais 

teomax  ok  the  guaed 

natioxaii  gallery,  lo:>jdok 


MASTEKS   IX    AKT      1>1.ATK   Til 

PHOTOGRAPH    BY    MANSELL    4,   CO. 


[4-..I] 


THE  OlilJKK  Of  RKLEASE 
PKOPEHTY  OF  MR.  JAMES   KENBO 


MASTEHS   IX    AHT      in.ATK   IV 

PHOTOGRAPH   BY   MANSEIL    i  CO. 


MILLAIS 

POHTHAIT   OF  KUSKIX 

PROPKIMY    OK   SIK    IIKXKl'   ACL.AND 


MASTEKS   IX   ART      PLATE   V 

[4;w] 


MILLAIS 

POHTRAIT  OF  W.  E.  GLADSTONE 

OWXKI)  KY  SIH  CHARLES  TENNANT 


s  s 


MASTt:KS   IX    AKT 

PHOTOGRAPH    BY    MA. 


PLATE   VIII 

SELL    &   CO. 


[4.-,.,] 


MILLAIS 

AITTUMX  I^KAVES 

(IWXKI)   J!Y    COHPIIKATIOX   OF   MAXCHESTER 


H     O 

w  - 


MASTEKS   IN    AltT      PLATK  X 


PHOTOGRAPH 


[44.!] 


Ml  1. 1, A  IS 

Till':  jtLiAi)  (;iKi, 

OWNKI)    HV   COKPOKATIOX    OK  BIKMIXUIIAM 


l'(.)l{Tl{.\ir   Ol'    Mil. I.. MS    IIY    lll.MSl:i.h' 


IKhlZI   GALLKUV,  JXOKKKCK 


Millais's  portrait  of  himself",  which  hangs  in  the  Uffizi,  is  an  interesting  doc- 
ument. It  portrays  him  as  he  would  have  liked  himself  to  appear —  as  a 
handsome,  clever,  healthy-looking  English  country  gentleman.  There  is  noth- 
ing of  the  lean  and  hungry  look  which  many  artists  wear.  On  the  other 
hand,  evervthing  is  full  and  rounded.  It  must  be  admitted  that  one  has  a 
suspicion  that  the  picture  is  a  trifle  sweetened,  if  not  deliberately  flattered.  The 
bust  of  Millais  by  Onslow-Ford  has  a  grimmer  look,  and,  at  the  same  time,  it 
is  really  more  attractive  because  more  virile. 

[  444  ] 


MASTERS     IN     ART 


3Joftn  ISbetett  0iillui^ 


BORN    1829  :    DIED    1896 
ENGLISH      SCHOOL 


JOHN  EVERETT  MILLAIS  was  born  June  8,  1829,  at  Southampton. 
His  father  was  a  well-to-do  man,  yet  by  no  means  rich.  He  came  of  a  Jer- 
sey family.  Indeed,  Millais's  blood  was  more  French  than  English;  though 
no  one  could  be  more  English  in  aspect  and  in  sentiment  than  he.  It  is  said 
that  he  could  trace  his  descent  to  the  family  whose  ancestor  was  also  forebear 
to  Jean  Francois  Millet,  the  famous  French  peasant  painter. 

Very  early  in  his  life  he  showed  talent.  He  entered  the  Royal  Academy 
Schools  when  only  eleven  years  old,  and  at  once  began  to  do  remarkable  work. 
There  are  in  existence  sketches  by  him,  made  when  he  was  only  nine,  which 
are  astonishing  things  for  a  child  of  that  age  to  have  done.  In  short,  as  far  as 
England  could  afford  him  training,  he  had  learned  all  he  could  learn  in  schools 
while  yet  a  lad. 

None  the  less,  the  compositions  and  paintings  of  this  early  period  are  en- 
tirely without  interest  except  to  the  historian.  He  had  not  ''found  himself," 
and  what  he  did  was  simply  an  indifferent  echo,  or  reflection,  of  what  he  had 
learned.  The  titles  of  his  pictures  of  this  time  remind  one  of  those  pictures 
which  Clive  Newcome  found  in  the  atelier  of  Mr.  Gandish.  One  of  these  pic- 
tures was  *  Pizzaro  seizing  the  Inca  of  Peru,'  another, '  Elgivia  seized  by  Order 
of  Archbishop  Odo.'  At  about  the  same  time  he  made  a  huge  design,  four- 
teen feet  by  ten,  'The  Widow  bestowing  Her  Mite,'  which  he  sent  in  to  the 
Westminster  Hall  competition. 

All  these  pictures,  it  should  be  noted,  were  painted  before  he  was  nineteen 
years  of  age.  About  that  time  he  began  really  to  think;  and  also  at  that  time 
he  made  the  acquaintance  of  two  very  remarkable  young  men, —  Dante  Ga- 
briel Rossetti  and  Holman  Hunt.  There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  discussion 
about  who  really  suggested  the  idea  of  the  Pre-Raphaelite  Brotherhood.  Ap- 
parently it  was  not  Millais.  Some  say  Holman  Hunt  fathered  it.  Others  say 
that  the  first  idea  came  from  Rossetti.  It  does  not  at  all  matter;  the  idea, 
such  as  it  was,  was  eagerly  grasped  at  by  all  three,  and  in  a  very  short  time 
they  were  each  painting  remarkable  pictures. 

The  underlying  idea  of  Pre-Raphaelitism  was  to  restore  or  regain  some- 
thing of  the  sincerity,  truth,  and  earnestness  of  the  men  who  worked  before 

[445] 


24  MASTERSINART 

Raphael's  time.  Millals  and  Hunt  felt,  with  some  reason,  that  the  men  of 
their  day  painted  by  formula;  that,  instead  of  trying  to  render  nature,  they 
painted  conventional  types.  So  they  set  themselves  to  do  work  which  should 
be  absolutely  sincere  and  true.  One  interesting  result  of  their  effort  was  that 
they  made  work  which  was  far  more  sincere  in  intention  and  truer  in  result 
than  what  the  Italian  Primitives  or  Pre-Raphaelites  had  done;  for  these  latter 
had  their  conventions  just  as  much  as  the  later  men,  only  it  was  not  the  con- 
vention of  Raphael.  On  the  other  hand,  the  best  Pre-Raphaelite  work  of 
Millais  is  almost  absolutely  unconventional,  without  prejudice.  And,  again, 
Millais's  work,  to  use  a  word  very  popular  just  now,  was  objective,  while  the 
Italian  Primitives  were  always  subjective.  The  Italian  Pre-Raphaelites 
worked  from  a  series  of  receipts  taught  by  the  masters  in  their  bottegas;  while 
Millais,  shaking  off  all  tradition,  invented  his  own  formulas.  So,  curiously 
enough,  it  happened  that  English  Pre-Raphaelitism  became  a  very  different 
thing  from  the  work  of  the  Italian  Primitives. 

Millais's  first  picture  in  the  new  period  was  'Lorenzo  and  Isabella'  (Plate 
ix).  Its  exhibition  in  conjunction  with  Rossetti's  'Annunciation'  and  Hunt's 
'Rienzi'  provoked  the  usual  storm  of  scorn  and  disapprobation  which  very 
original  work  is  apt  to  produce;  for,  whatever  else  it  was,  the  'Lorenzo  and 
Isabella'  was  certainly  original.  Naif  to  the  verge  of  grotesqueness,  it 
marked  a  distinct  break  from  Millais's  childish,  eclectic  manner.  Indeed,  it 
is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  a  youth,  who  had  already  learned  an  exces 
sively  mannered  style,  should  at  the  first  effort  have  been  able  to  break  awa)' 
from  all  that  had  gone  before  and  achieve  at  once  a  perfectly  personal,  orig- 
inal, and  natf  style.  But  so  he  did;  and,  more,  he  kept  at  this  highlv  intense 
and  individual  style  for  ten  years,  without  wavering. 

His  second  picture  made  in  this  way  was  'Christ  in  the  House  of  His 
Parents.'  This  provoked  an  outcry  even  louder  than  had  been  that  of  the  year 
before.  Every  effort  was  made  to  laugh  the  young  innovators  out  of  court;  but 
all  three  of  them,  each  in  varying  degree,  were  made  of  obstinate  stuff,  and 
they  kept  on  producing  serious  and  interesting  work  made  as  they  thought 
fit.  Millais  produced  year  by  year  'Ferdinand  lured  by  Ariel,'  'Mariana  in 
the  Moated  Grange,'  and  'The  Return  of  the  Dove  to  the  Ark' — only  to 
meet  with  more  of  the  same  sort  of  scorn  and  abuse  that  his  earlier  pictures 
had  provoked. 

It  should  be  pointed  out  here  that  while  the  young  Pre-Raphaelites  were 
undoubtedly  sincere,  and  had  a  part  of  truth  on  their  side,  they  were  not 
wholly  right.  It  often  happens  that  a  work  of  genius  is  severely  criticized 
from  perfectly  sound  reasons.  The  fault  is  apt  to  be  that  sufficient  sympathy 
is  not  shown  for  the  good  qualities  of  the  innovating  work.  The  Pre-Raphael- 
ites, with  all  their  admirable  qualities,  produced  some  decidedly  queer,  not 
to  say  grotesque,  work.  It  must  be  added,  too,  that  of  the  three,  Millais  was 
the  only  thoroughly  endowed  artist.  Rossetti  was  a  poet  who  painted,  and 
Holman  Hunt  was  a  doctrinaire  who  expressed  his  convictions  in  paint.  It 
is  rather  curious  that  Millais,  who  of  the  three  was  least  moved  by  the  tenets 
of  the  Brotherhood,  was  the  only  one  who  had  the  technical  endowment  to 

[446] 


MILLAIS  25 

thoroughly  carry  out  their  ideas.  Hunt's  work,  rather  interesting  at  first, 
grew  steadily  more  and  more  terrible,  Rossetti  had  not  the  application  and 
training  to  develop  his  genuine  gifts. 

But  Millais  had  the  power  to  carry  out  their  theories,  and  In  the  ten  years 
of  his  Pre-Raphaelitism  he  did  some  remarkable  work.  His  Pre-Raphaelite 
work  was  indeed  better  than  his  later  painting;  for  this  reason:  that,  being 
much  as  other  men,  only  better  endowed,  the  Pre-Raphaelite  style  came  to 
him  more  naturally  than  did  his  later  manner.  The  Pre-Raphaelite  technique 
is  much  as  any  layman  would  paint  without  stopping  to  think.  Its  very  naivete, 
which  is  its  charm,  is  the  reason  why  it  could  never  have  been  great  art.  And 
it  is  the  reason  why  it  suited  Millais  so  well.  Later,  his  intelligence  told  him 
that  the  best  painting  required  a  more  synthetic  rendering.  He  was  not  in- 
telligent enough  to  analyze  the  different  problems  that  make  true  synthetic 
rendering  the  most  difficult  thing  in  art. 

Millais's  two  comrades  in  this  movement  deserve  each  their  word.  Dante 
Gabriel  Rossetti  was  one  of  the  most  interesting  characters  of  the  last  century. 
Poets  may  think  him  most  an  artist.  Artists  will  always  think  him  most  a 
poet.  Some  of  his  writings  must  always  rank  among  the  finest  English  po- 
ems. As  to  art,  he  had  great  natural  talent;  or,  rather,  he  had  an  instinctive 
perception  of  what  was  beautiful  and  ability  enough  to  make  it,  if  he  had 
been  properly  trained.  In  entering  this  movement  he  was  really  more  inter- 
ested in  the  naif  charm  of  the  Primitives  than  in  their  charming  naivete.  He 
really  was  not  interested  in  truth  in  art,  but  rather  in  beauty. 

Holman  Hunt  was  the  exact  opposite  in  almost  every  way.  When  one 
looks  at  his  pictures,  so  sincere,  so  tortured,  so  ugly,  one  wonders  whether  he 
really  ever  saw  a  beautiful  thing.  Interesting  as  much  of  his  work  is,  he  really 
demonstrated  in  his  painting  the  necessity  and  merit  of  an  academy  to  teach 
students  the  virtues  of  simplicity  and  breadth.  In  fact,  his  work  has  been  a 
laborious  and  painful  way  of  proving  its  own  futility.  Some  of  his  early  paint- 
ings, where,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  he  was  a  good  deal  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Millais,  like  the  'Hireling  Shepherd'  or  'Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona,' 
are  better  than  much  of  his  later  work. 

Almost  all  the  members  of  the  Pre-Raphaelite  group  were  very  interesting 
characters;  and,  though  it  is  generally  assumed  that,  apart  from  Millais, 
Hunt,  and  Rossetti,  their  work  was  negligible,  none  the  less  certain  others  of 
this  group  did  remarkable  things.  Walter  Deverell  was  one  who,  among  other 
things,  "discovered"  Eleanor  Siddal,  the  beautiful  milliner  who  posed  for 
Millais's  'Ophelia'  (Plate  vii)  and  who  later  became  the  wife  of  Dante 
Gabriel  Rossetti.  Deverell  died  at  twenty-eight,  but  had  already  done  enough 
to  show  that  he  had  a  future  before  him  if  he  could  only  live.  Some  of  Arthur 
Hughes's  paintings  have  charming  qualities  of  delicate  perception  and  re- 
fined execution;  and  even  Collinson,  probably  the  weakest  of  the  original 
seven,  did  work  which  was  not  bad  when  compared  to  much  that  was  at  that 
time  being  done  in  England.  By  a  strange  paradox,  though  Millais  was  at 
heart  the  least  Pre-Raphaelite  of  the  seven,  it  was  his  lot  to  make  pictures 
which  should  popularize  these  ideas.    Rossetti  at  that  period  was  rather  in- 

[447] 


26  MASTERS     IN     ART 

competent  technically;  Hunt,  while  skilful  enough,  was  enmeshed  in  a  net  of 
detail.  Millais  alone  had  the  technical  skill  and  sense  of  effect  sufficient  to 
state  these  ideas  in  paint  in  the  way  they  should  be  done. 

Just  how  Millais  ever  happened  to  go  into  this  movement  is  hard  to  guess. 
His  own  instinct  was  for  popularity.  He  had  the  gift  of  pleasing  in  every  way, 
in  person  as  well  as  by  his  art.  He  was  not  by  nature  suited  for  companion- 
ship with  either  Hunt  or  Rossetti.  Indeed,  chance  had,  with  its  usual  irony, 
flung  together  three  of  the  most  marked,  yet  opposed,  English  characteristics: 
decadent  poetry,  as  represented  by  Rossetti;  the  Nonconformist  conscience,  as 
represented  by  Hunt;  and  the  bourgeois  instinct  of  enjoyment,  as  personified 
b}-  Millais.  Certain  writers  tell  us  that  a  man  may  have  two  or  even  three 
separate  consciousnesses;  and  it  sometimes  seems  as  if  Millais  had  two  na- 
tures :  one,  perhaps  the  highest  one,  which  suffered  him  to  do  the  Pre-Raphael- 
ite pictures,  and  another,  more  commonplace,  which  encouraged  him  to  do 
the  work  of  his  later  years. 

In  these  early  days  there  were  times  when  Millais  was  pretty  hard  put  to 
it.  There  were  times  when  he  was  glad  to  do  a  portrait  for  two  pounds. 
Even  when  he  began  to  sell  pictures  he  was  obliged  to  sell  for  rather  small 
prices.  'Christ  in  the  House  of  His  Parents,'  for  instance,  sold  for  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  pounds.  This  does  not  seem  a  very  large  price  when  one  con- 
siders the  number  of  figures,  and  the  care  and  time  spent  on  its  painting. 
'Ferdinand  lured  by  Ariel,'  another  of  the  pictures  of  this  time,  was  to  have 
sold  for  one  hundred  pounds,  but  the  disgruntled  buyer  subsequently  threw 
the  picture  back  on  the  artist's  hands.  'The  Huguenots,'  which  is  perhaps 
the  most  popular  and  well-known  of  all  Millais's  pictures,  sold  for  two  hun- 
dred pounds,  which  must  be  called  a  small  sum  when  one  thinks  of  the 
prices  which  Millais's  work  subsequently  received. 

Some  of  the  pictures  he  painted  during  his  ten  years  of  Pre-Raphaelitism 
are,  and  always  will  be,  among  the  fine  things  of  English  art.  The  'Ophelia' 
(Plate  vii)  is  a  very  remarkable  picture,  and,  while  it  has  defects  inseparable 
from  its  manner  of  painting,  it  will  always  remain  a  fine  production.  Again, 
'The  Blind  Girl'  (Plate  x)  is  an  admirable  performance  and,  strangely 
enough,  suggests  in  certain  ways  the  work  of  Bastien-Lepage.  Indeed,  the 
Pre-Raphaelite  movement  was,  in  a  certain  sense,  a  forerunner  of  the  French 
realistic  movement,  though  it  apparently  had  no  connection  with  it,  direct  or 
indirect. 

Still  later,  the  'Apple-blossoms' was  a  lovely  imagining,  and  is,  perhaps,  the 
most  purely  beautiful  picture  that  Millais  ever  painted.  The  idea,  the  compo- 
sition, with  its  working  out,  and  the  separate  figures  are  each  and  all  charming 
and  delightful.  Yet  again,  'Sir  Isombras  at  the  Ford'  (Plate  i)  is  one  of  the 
finest  things  that  Millais  ever  did.  It  is  artfully  rzaif  in  composition,  and  the 
pieces  are  well  worked  out.  There  is  a  pathetic  interest  attaching  to  this  and 
the  'Apple-blossoms,'  as  they  were  among  the  last  fine  things  that  Millais 
did;  and  they  seem,  too,  to  be  among  the  best.  Millais  was  gaining  in  skill 
and  ability  every  year.  If  he  had  only  let  himself  change  slowly  all  might  yet 
have  been  well. 

[448] 


MILLAIS  27 

Millais's  volte  face  from  Pre-Raphaelitism  to  a  broader,  more  modern 
style  of  painting  is  one  of  the  most  surprising  things  in  the  history  of  art. 
When  one  begins  to  look  over  the  matter  carefully  one  finds  that  various  signs 
were  not  wanting  for  quite  a  long  time  beforehand.  The  change  itself  came 
suddenly  enough,  but  the  premonitions  appeared,  here  or  there,  for  some 
years  beforehand.  For  instance:  'The  Huguenots,'  though  painted  in  the 
Pre-Raphaelite  period,  has  little  except  technique  to  connect  it  with  the 
other  pictures  of  that  period.  It  is  distinctly  commonplace  in  idea.  It  has 
none  of  the  subtlety  of  imagination  of  the  'Ophelia,'  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  it  a  beautiful  thing  seen  in  nature,  like  the  'Apple-blossoms.' 

Many  have  felt  that  Millais's  violent  change  from  his  first  style,  so  sincere 
and  severe,  to  his  later  popular  manner,  so  loose  and  luxuriant,  was  made 
purely  with  the  intention  of  producing  popular  work  that  would  sell  well. 
But  there  are  others,  more  fair-minded  perhaps,  who  think  that  he  had  come 
to  see  that  the  Pre-Raphaelite  manner,  with  all  its  charm  of  sincerity,  was  not 
the  logical  method  for  a  man  of  the  nineteenth  century,  a  man  of  intelligence 
and  thoughtfulness;  for  the  Pre-Raphaelite  method,  as  far  as  technique  is 
concerned,  presupposed  a  childlike,  naif,  unreasoning  nature,  which  was 
more  characteristic  of  the  fourteenth  century  than  of  the  nineteenth.  Millais 
probably  felt  that  if  he  meant  to  paint  a  picture  that  would  "carry"  well  he 
ought  to  stand  up  to  it  and  paint  it  across  the  room.  The  Pre-Raphaelite 
method  almost  demanded  that  one  should  sit  down  to  one's  work,  and  sit, 
too,  very  near  the  model. 

Perhaps,  then,  the  great  trouble  with  Millais's  change  was  not  that  he 
made  it  at  all,  but  that  he  made  it  so  quickly.  Velasquez  made  something  the 
same  sort  of  change,  from  tight  severity  to  loosely  rendered  work,  as  Millais 
did.  Only  Velasquez  spent  his  whole  life  doing  it.  One  can  trace  his  gradu- 
ally broadening  manner,  step  by  step,  from  picture  to  picture.  Velasquez,  with 
all  his  intelligence  and  progressiveness,  seems  to  have  had  immense  conserva- 
tism. He  tested  each  step  carefully,  considered  it  thoughtfully,  and  then,  the 
step  once  taken,  never  went  back.  Millais,  like  so  many  moderns,  made  the 
step  violently,  petulantly.  Instead  of  keeping,  as  Velasquez  did,  all  the  es- 
sential and  important  merits  of  his  old  style  when  he  acquired  the  new,  he, 
on  the  other  hand,  threw  away  all  his  old  qualities  of  charm,  distinction,  and 
rarity  in  his  eagerness  to  catch  at  the  new  manner.  While  the  change  of  tech- 
nique very  possibly  was  induced  by  more  or  less  logical  reasons,  one  cannot 
help  feeling  that  he  changed  in  other  ways  than  that.  His  art  lost  its  dis- 
tinction. Compositions  like  the  'Ophelia,'  the  'Apple-blossoms,'  'Sir  Isom- 
bras  at  the  Ford,'  are  among  the  most  distinguished,  the  least  commonplace, 
in  English  art.  After  the  famous  break  one  can  hardly  find  one  composition 
by  Millais  that  is  not  cheap  and  commonplace.  It  is  not  merely  that  the  tech- 
nique has  changed;  one  feels  that  the  whole  nature  of  the  man  has  changed. 
In  looking  at  some  of  these  early  compositions  one  feels  that  a  rare  and  ex- 
quisite spirit  designed  them.  When  one  looks  at  the  mere  arrangement  of  the 
later  pictures  one  feels  that  any  one  from  the  staff  of  the  London  Graphic 
could  have  managed  them. 

[449] 


28  MASTERS    IN    ART 

The  end  of  Millals's  life  Is  indeed  pathetic.  He  had  been  elected  to  the 
Presidency  of  the  Royal  Academy  on  the  death  of  his  old  friend  Lord  Leigh- 
ton.  This  must  have  been  one  of  the  ambitions  of  his  ambitious  life,  and  no 
doubt  made  him  very  happy.  But,  unfortunately,  he  had  only  a  short  time 
in  which  to  enjoy  his  honor.  A  terrible  disease  overtook  him,  which  proved 
to  be  cancer  of  the  throat.  After  much  suffering,  he  died,  on  August  13,  1896, 
having  been  in  office  for  less  than  six  months.  Whatever  one  may  think  of 
his  later  painting,  he  was  evidently  the  logical  candidate  for  this  position,  and 
it  is  a  pleasure  to  know  that  his  ambition  was  gratified  before  his  death. 

Millais  was  immensely  successful  at  this  period.  After  winning  all  sorts  of 
honors  with  his  subject-pictures,  he  went  into  portrait-painting  and  won  new 
honors  there,  at  least  in  the  estimation  of  the  public.  Frank  HoU  and  Her- 
komer,  who  till  then  had  been  the  popular  portrait-painters,  had  to  take  a 
somewhat  secondary  position.  Carriages  blocked  up  Millais's  door.  The  rich 
and  great  crowded  his  studio,  desiring  that  their  portraits  should  be  taken. 
His  prices  were  enormous.  He  had  from  fifteen  hundred  pounds  to  two  thou- 
sand pounds,  but  people  paid  them  willingly,  conceiving  that  he  was  the 
greatest  living  painter.  These  prices  are  not  so  remarkable  now,  but  at  that 
time  were  considered  colossal. 

Millais's  portraits  were  good  as  likenesses,  and  at  times  he  was  very  success- 
ful in  this  respect.  His  'Portrait  of  Thomas  Carlyle'  was  very  famous, 
though  it  is  a  little  overshadowed  at  present  by  the  one  which  Whistler  painted 
of  the  same  man.  Again,  his  'Portrait  of  Gladstone'  (Plate  v)  brought  him 
immense  reputation.  It  is  effective  without  being  very  subtle.  It  is  by  less 
well-known  portraits  that  he  will  in  future  make  his  claim  as  a  great  portrait- 
painter.  His  *  Portrait  of  Mrs.  Heugh,'  while  violent  and  exaggerated,  is,  all 
the  same,  a  very  strong  conception,  and  is  strongly  worked  out.  Again,  his 
'Portrait  of  Ruskin'  (Plate  iv),  while  almost  grotesque,  is  so  merely  through 
its  intense  honesty  and  grip  of  character,  and  will  always  be  one  of  the  inter- 
esting things  in  English  art.  On  the  other  hand,  his  'Portrait  of  Himself  in 
the  famous  Autograph  Portrait  Collection  of  the  Uffizi  Gallery,  is  a  rather 
tiresome  performance.  It  is  hard  to  believe  that  the  man  who  attained  to  the 
intensity  of  the  'Ruskin'  should  have  made  this  rather  vapid  portrait. 

Millais,  beside  putting  landscape  backgrounds  into  many  of  his  pictures, 
was  fond  of  painting  pure  landscape  on  his  summer  or  autumn  holidays.  Of 
these,  'Chill  October'  is  the  most  celebrated.  It  is  in  some  ways  a  remarkable 
performance,  and  shows  great  skill  in  handling  detail.  The  trouble  with  it  is 
that  there  seems  to  be  no  focusing-point.  Millais  had  forgotten  an  idea  very 
well  expressed  in  the  first  volume  of  'Modern  Painters';  to  \vit,  that  when 
painting  landscape  one  must  make  up  his  mind  just  where  the  focusing-point 
is  to  come,  and  then  paint  the  edges  of  masses  round  about  somewhat  softer 
than  the  central  part. 

In  trying  to  sum  up  what  Millais's  most  remarkable  qualities  were  one  is 
confronted  by  a  difficulty;  for  those  qualities  which  made  his  early  work  re- 
markable ceased  entirely  in  the  work  of  his  latter  years.  If  one  were  speaking 
of  his  Pre-Raphaelite  days  one  might  say  that  poignancy  and  intensity  were 

[450] 


MI  LLAIS  29 

his  two  marked  characteristics.  There  is  in  these  early  works  a  grim  determi- 
nation to  give  the  exact  aspect  of  the  thing  seen,  albeit  at  times  in  a  rather 
meticulous  way.  Later,  these  qualities  entirely  disappear.  Whatever  else 
Millais's  later  works  may  have  been,  they  certainly  were  neither  poignant  or 
intense.  Indeed,  for  the  most  part,  they  are  not  very  good  painting;  but  if 
they  have  a  quality  it  is  a  certain  largeness  of  statement  —  often  diffuse, 
sloppy,  or  sleazy,  but  still  bigly  and  generously  handled. 

As  to  composition,  Millais's  work  divides  itself,  as  in  every  other  respect, 
into  the  first  and  second  periods.  The  composition  of  his  first  period  is  some- 
times very  queer,  as  in  the  'Lorenzo  and  Isabella,'  but  it  is  always  studied  and 
considered,  and  in  some  instances,  as  in  the  'Ophelia,'  the  'Apple-blossoms,' 
and  the  'Isombras,'  it  is  admirable.  That  is,  it  is  personal,  original,  well 
arranged,  and  yet  the  arrangement  is  to  a  great  extent  concealed.  The  com- 
position of  the  later  work,  on  the  other  hand,  is  rather  tiresome  —  never  ex- 
actly bad,  but  always  rather  obvious.  'The  Children  with  Goldfish'  is  rather 
pretty.  'Hearts  Are  Trumps'  is  quite  a  good  arrangement;  but,  on  the  whole, 
the  compositions  of  this  period  are  rather  commonplace. 

His  drawing  was  usually  pretty  good.  Sometimes  it  was  admirable;  again, 
at  times,  it  was  really  pretty  bad.  He  was  never  in  any  sense  a  draftsman, 
like  Da  Vinci  or  Ingres.  Indeed,  in  his  day  in  England  there  were  no  means 
of  learning  to  draw  like  that.  But  besides  that,  Millais,  even  in  his  Pre- 
Raphaelite  days,  felt  things  more  as  a  painter.  There  exist  careful  pencil-stud- 
ies for  some  of  his  pictures  —  as,  for  instance,  certain  studies  for  'Apple- 
blossoms.'  Yet  even  these  are  not  conceived  from  the  draftsman's  point  of 
view.  There  is  no  particular  research  of  pure  line  or  construction.  Rather, 
they  are  studies  to  find  about  where  things  would  come  in  the  painting. 

In  color,  some  of  the  early  Pre-Raphaelite  things  may  be  a  little  crude  and 
raw,  yet  they  have  about  them  a  quality  that  is  hard  to  match  in  any  of  the 
later  work.  Perhaps  the  culminating  point  of  Millais's  Pre-Raphaelite  work 
is  the  'Ophelia.'  In  this  the  color  is  handsome  throughout.  There  is  nothing 
disagreeable  in  it.  Indeed,  as  one  remembers  it,  it  is  rather  particularly  agree- 
able. The  roses  on  the  river-bank  and  the  color  of  the  leaves  are  well  ren- 
dered. 

Millais's  method  of  work  was  perfectly  simple.  He  put  the  canvas  by  the 
side  of  the  model  and  then  built  up  his  effect  in  patches,  stepping  back  between 
each  stroke  to  judge  of  the  effect  on  the  canvas,  painting  it  in  pretty  directly. 
In  his  earlier  Pre-Raphaelite  work  he  made  the  pieces  dc  premier  coup,  bring- 
ing them  into  relation  as  best  he  might,  though  he  did  very  little  in  the  way  of 
glazing.  In  his  later  work  he  proceeded  more  as  many  modern  painters  do 
now;  that  is,  he  indicated  the  general  effect  rather  broadly,  and  then  by  suc- 
cessive repainting  brought  the  thing  to  a  point  of  finish  he  desired  or  thought 
necessary.  When  he  was  painting  landscape  he  had  built  a  little  hut  with  a 
glass  front  and  roof.  In  this  way  he  got  the  quiet  of  the  studio  —  and  the  con- 
stant rattling  of  the  canvas  from  the  wind  is  not  the  least  of  the  landscape- 
painter's  troubles  —  and  at  the  same  time  got  his  outdoor  effect. 

In  the  matter  of  gesture,  Millais's  art  was  often  remarkable.    Sometimes 

[451] 


30  MASTERS     IN     ART 

his  feeling  about  this  was  so  intense  that  the  gesture  became  almost  grotesque, 
but  often  he  found  a  movement  that  was  at  the  same  time  poignant  and  beau- 
tiful. Particularly  is  this  true  of  some  of  his  illustrations.  The  action  of  the 
enemy  in  the  illustration  of  'Sowing  Tares,'  of  the  woman  in  the  'Moated 
Grange,'  of  the  man  and  woman  in  'Love,'  is  at  least  poignant  and  expres- 
sive. Sometimes  his  desire  to  be  expressive  leads  him  to  something  almost 
ridiculous,  as  in  the  man  kicking  a  dog  in  the  'Lorenzo  and  Isabella.'  Some- 
times, again,  the  action  is  at  the  same  time  almost  funny  and  yet  really  fine, 
as  in  the  'Escaped  Heretic'    "  'T  is  but  a  step  from  the  sublime  to  the  ridic- 

ous. 

Millais's  illustrations,  by  the  way,  are  hardly  so  good  as  one  would  expect 
after  seeing  his  paintings  of  the  same  period.  They  are,  as  a  rule,  rather 
slightly  indicated  and  not  so  well  drawn  as  one  might  hope.  The  drawings 
are,  no  doubt,  somewhat  injured  by  the  rather  unsympathetic  engraving  of 
those  days;  yet  men  who  drew  in  a  method  suited  to  this  engraving,  as,  for 
instance,  Frederic  Sandys,  achieved  some  remarkable  results.  The  fact  is 
that  Millais  was  first  and  always  a  painter.  He  conceived  his  illustrations  in 
that  way,  and  as  a  result  they  often  suffered  from  the  graver.  One  or  two  of 
his  illustrations  are  delightful;  others  are  rather  slight  and  diffuse. 

Millais's  technique  was,  from  the  first,  remarkable.  In  the  earliest  things, 
as  the  'Lorenzo  and  Isabella,'  it  is  a  little  dry;  although  some  of  the  pieces  in 
this  picture  are  painted  with  a  skill  that  reminds  one  of  Van  Eyck.  By  the 
time  the  'Ophelia'  was  painted  he  had  come  to  his  best  expression.  It  may 
be  that  he  never  painted  a  better  thing,  as  far  as  technique  is  concerned.  In 
his  later  work  the  technique  is  easy  and  free,  and  yet  one  feels  that  it  is  unsat- 
isfactory. The  fact  is,  broad  handling  requires  a  special  training,  and  one 
cannot  at  once  jump  from  highly  finished  work  to  a  broad  and  suggestive 
technique.  Technically,  too,  the  'Ophelia'  is  about  the  high-water  mark  of 
Millais's  talent.  Everything  is  made  with  the  utmost  scrupulousness,  and 
yet  there  is  no  sense  of  tired  or  timid  workmanship.  In  the  later  works  there 
is,  of  course,  much  more  freedom.  Some  of  these  later  things,  like  the  'Yeo- 
man of  the  Guard'  (Plate  ii)  or  the  'Portrait  of  Mrs.  Bishoffsheim,'  have 
certain  good  qualities,  but  it  cannot  be  said  that  any  of  them  have  the  same 
intense  interest  that  is  afforded  by  the  early  work. 

Millais  was  of  a  certain  type  marked  for  success, —  Rubens  was  another, 
—  handsome,  able,  brilliant,  to  whom  art  was  a  joy  and  a  pleasure  rather 
than  a  suffering.  He  was  a  hard  worker,  and  in  his  Pre-Raphaelite  days  must 
have  made  some  deep  researches.  But  he  worked  easily;  things  came  easily; 
life  passed  by  pleasantly.  He  had  a  splendid  house,  a  beautiful  wife,  hand- 
some children;  he  was  a  baronet;  he  had  a  good  position  in  society; — and 
he  enjoyed  all  these  things.  He  liked  hunting;  he  was  a  good  horseman,  a 
good  salmon-fisher,  and  a  good  shot.  In  fact,  he  did  everything  well.  He 
would  have  made  a  good  architect  or  a  good  stock  broker,  if  he  had  not  been 
an  artist.  At  the  same  time,  he  had  a  distinct  vocation  as  an  artist;  and  though 
his  later  years  were  materially  successful,  they  are  a  pathetic  instance  of  how 
easily  an  artist  may  be  spoiled.  They  show  how  steadily  the  divine  flame  must 
be  fed  and  kept  from  adverse  influence. 

[4.'32] 


MILLAIS  31 

He  had  in  him  the  instinct  of  popularity,  of  making  things  that  people 
would  like.  And  this  instinct,  in  itself  a  normal  and  healthy  thing,  did  not 
prevent  him  in  his  Pre-Raphaelite  days  from  making  noble,  serious,  and  touch- 
ing pictures.  Later  it  ran  riot,  and,  together  with  the  desire  for  riches  and 
position,  helped  to  destroy  his  art.  One  of  Millais's  most  remarkable  qualities, 
indeed,  was  this  prescience  of  what  people  would  be  apt  to  like.  Many  popular 
artists  have  had  this  quality  to  some  degree.  With  him  it  was  intensified  and 
strengthened  to  the  point  of  genius.  Not  only  in  his  later  work,  but  in  much 
of  his  early  paintings,  he  produced  pictures  that  have  become  part  of  the 
every-day  life  of  the  English  nation.  Not  only  such  inanities  as  the  '  Pear's 
Soap  Boy 'or  'Little  Miss  Muffet'  were  popular,  but  serious  compositions  like 
'The  Huguenot'  or  'The  Proscribed  Royalist,'  painted  in  his  most  intense 
Pre-Raphaelite  manner,  have  become  immensely  popular.  Engravings  of 
these  works  have  sold  by  the  thousand.  This  popularity  came  because  Mil- 
lais  was  like  every  one  else.  He  was  a  "superman"  in  the  truest  meaning  of 
the  term;  that  is,  he  was  as  other  men,  only  handsomer,  stronger,  more  clever. 

Millais  did  not  found  a  school;  he  had  no  followers.  The  Hon.  John  Collier 
was  his  scholar,  and  paints  more  or  less  in  his  manner,  with  more  o{  modern  he. 
Yet  Millais  did  not  form  a  tradition  in  the  sense  that  Rossetti,  a  much  less 
skilful  man,  did.  This  is  partly  because  Rossetti  was  a  mannerist,  while  Mil- 
lais was  too  much  of  a  realist  to  have  any  particular  manner.  Also, —  and  it 
is  really  saying  the  same  thing  in  different  words, —  Millais's  technical  skill 
in  the  making  of  little  things  was  so  remarkable  that  only  a  man  equally  en- 
dowed could  follow  him. 

In  summing  up,  one  feels  that  Millais  was  one  of  the  men  most  richly  en- 
dowed by  nature  for  art.  It  seems  that  he  could,  under  the  right  conditions, 
have  done  anything.  The  ability  was  not  lacking,  and  in  his  Pre-Raphaelite 
work  he  seemed  to  be  on  the  way  to  great  things.  He  had  the  eye;  he  had  the 
feeling;  at  first,  he  seemed  to  have  the  intelligence.  He  did  enough  in  this 
manner  always  to  be  one  of  the  glories  of  England;  then  the  change  came. 
The  change  came,  and  his  later  work  is  really  hardly  worth  discussion.  One 
regrets  it;  that  is  all.  Here  was  this  overman,  clever  among  wise  men,  but 
content  to  dwell  in  honor  among  the  fools  at  the  last. 

Millais's  place  in  art,  or  even  in  English  art,  is  a  diflScult  one  to  place.  One 
feels  that  Gainsborough,  Constable,  and  Turner  were  greater  men,  and  yet 
Millais  could  do,  and  do  simply  and  easily,  things  that  were  quite  beyond 
them;  that  were,  indeed,  undreamed  of  in  their  philosophy.  He  has  produced 
inanities  like  the  'Pear's  Soap  Boy,'  'Yes,'  and  'No,'  that  were  not  merely 
silly,  but  thoroughly  bad  work.  Yet  he  produced  work  like  the  'Ophelia,' 
the  'Sir  Isombras,'  and  'The  Blind  Girl,'  that  will  always  be  among  the  great 
things  of  English  art.  It  seems  as  if  a  Daemon  possessed  him  when  he  did  those 
things.  They  seem  beyond  him  —  not  only  in  technique,  but  in  scope  and 
grasp.  Millais  himself  once  spoke  of  the  "vulgarity"  of  some  of  his  earlier 
work.  Really,  it  was  quite  the  other  way.  His  early  works,  even  the  failures, 
were  almost  always  distinguished.  Some  of  his  later  pictures  make  one  wince 
and  writhe  at  their  utter  vulgarity.    All  that  there  is  of  cheap,  sentimental, 

[453] 


32  MASTERS    IN    ART 

vulgar  in  modern  England  is  concentrated  in  some  of  these  visions.  Then 
one  goes  back  and  looks  at  the  three  pictures  before  mentioned,  and  one's 
wonder  grows.  At  the  last  one  comes  to  this :  at  his  worst  Millais  was  simply  a 
mediocre  painter,  with  a  curious  instinct  for  what  would  prove  popular;  at 
his  best  he  was  one  of  the  greatest  artists,  and  quite  the  most  original,  that 
England  has  produced. 


%i)t  art  of  iHillais 

JOHN     RUSKIN  «PRE-RAPHAELIT1SM' 

IT  has  to  be  remembered  that  no  one  mind  is  like  another,  either  in  its  pow- 
ers or  perceptions;  and  while  the  main  principles  of  training  must  be  the  same 
for  all,  the  result  of  each  will  be  as  various  as  the  kinds  of  truth  which  each 
will  apprehend;  therefore,  also,  the  modes  of  effort,  even  in  men  whose  inner 
principles  and  final  aims  are  exactly  the  same.  Suppose,  for  instance,  two 
men,  equally  honest,  equally  industrious,  equally  impressed  with  the  humble 
desire  to  render  some  part  of  what  they  saw  in  nature  faithfully;  and,  other- 
wise, trained  in  convictions  such  as  I  have  endeavored  to  induce.  But  one  of 
them  is  quiet  in  temperament,  has  a  feeble  memory,  no  invention,  and  ex- 
cessively keen  sight.  The  other  is  impatient  in  temperament,  has  a  memory 
which  nothing  escapes,  an  invention  which  never  rests,  and  is  comparatively 
near-sighted. 

Set  them  both  free  in  the  same  field  in  a  mountain  valley.  One  sees  every- 
thing, small  and  large,  with  almost  the  same  clearness:  mountains  and  grass- 
hoppers alike;  the  leaves  on  the  branches;  the  veins  in  the  pebbles;  the  bub- 
bles in  the  stream;  but  he  can  remember  nothing,  and  invent  nothing.  Pa- 
tiently he  sets  himself  to  his  mighty  task;  abandoning  at  once  all  thoughts  of 
seizing  transient  effects  or  giving  general  impressions  of  that  which  his  eyes 
present  to  him  in  microscopical  dissection,  he  chooses  some  small  portion  out 
of  the  infinite  scene,  and  calculates  with  courage  the  number  of  weeks  which 
must  elapse  before  he  can  do  justice  to  the  intensity  of  his  perceptions,  or  the 
fulness  of  matter  in  his  subject. 

Meantime,  the  other  has  been  watching  the  change  of  the  clouds  and  the 
march  of  the  light  along  the  mountain-sides;  he  beholds  the  entire  scene  in 
broad,  soft  masses  of  the  true  gradation,  and  the  very  feebleness  of  his  sight 
is  in  some  sort  an  advantage  to  him,  in  making  him  more  sensible  of  the 
aerial  mystery  of  distance,  and  hiding  from  him  the  multitudes  of  circum- 
stances which  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  him  to  represent.  But  there 
is  not  one  change  in  the  casting  of  the  jagged  shadows  along  the  hollows  of 
the  hills  but  it  is  fixed  on  his  mind  for  ever;  not  a  flake  of  spray  has  broken 
from  the  sea  of  cloud  about  their  bases  but  he  has  watched  it  as  it  melts  away, 
and  could  recall  it  to  its  lost  place  in  heaven  by  the  slightest  effort  of  his 
thoughts.  Not  only  so,  but  thousands  and  thousands  of  such  images,  of  older 
scenes,  remain  congregated  in  his  mind,  each  mingling  in  new  associations 

[454] 


MI  LLAIS  33 

with  those  now  visibly  passing  before  him;  and  these  again  confused  with 
other  images  of  his  own  ceaseless,  sleepless  imagination,  flashing  by  in  sudden 
troops.  Fancy  how  his  paper  will  be  covered  with  stray  symbols  and  blots, 
and  undecipherable  shorthand.  As  for  his  sitting  down  to"  draw  from  nature," 
there  was  not  one  of  the  things  which  he  wished  to  represent  that  stayed  for 
so  much  as  five  seconds  together;  but  none  of  them  escaped,  for  all  that:  they 
are  sealed  up  in  that  strange  storehouse  of  his;  he  may  take  one  of  them  out 
perhaps,  this  day  twenty  years,  and  paint  it  in  his  dark  room,  far  away.  Now, 
observe,  you  may  tell  of  both  these  men,  when  they  are  young,  that  they 
are  to  be  honest,  that  they  have  an  important  function,  and  that  they  are  not 
to  care  what  Raphael  did.  This  you  may  wholesomely  impress  on  them  both. 
But  fancy  the  exquisite  absurdity  of  expecting  one  of  them  to  possess  any  of 
the  qualities  of  the  other. 

I  have  supposed  the  feebleness  of  sight  in  the  last,  and  of  invention  in  the 
first  painter,  that  the  contrasts  between  them  might  be  more  striking;  but, 
with  very  slight  modification,  both  the  characters  are  real.  Grant  to  the  first 
considerable  inventive  power,  with  exquisite  sense  of  color;  and  give  to  the 
second,  in  addition  to  all  his  other  faculties,  the  eye  of  an  eagle;  and  the  first 
is  John  Everett  Millais  and  the  second  Joseph  Mallard  William  Turner. 

R.     DE     LA    SIZERANNE  'ENGLISH     CONTEMPORARY    ART' 

SOME  years  ago  Millais  was  walking  with  a  friend  in  Kensington  Gardens; 
he  suddenly  stood  still  by  the  small  Round  Pond  and  said,  "How  extraor- 
dinary it  is  to  think  that  I  once  fished  for  sticklebacks  in  this  very  pond, 
and  now  here  I  am  a  great  man,  a  baronet,  with  a  fine  house,  plenty  of  money, 
and  everything  my  heart  could  desire."  And  he  walked  on  gaily.  This  speech 
describes  Millais  —  his  history,  his  character,  even  his  art,  for  they  all  belong  to 
a  happy  man.  An  infant  prodigy,  at  five  years  old  he  drew  the  officers  in  garri- 
son at  Dinan  with  such  mastery  that  they  refused  to  believe  he  had  done  it. 
A  bet  was  laid,  and  the  sceptics  lost  for  a  champagne  dinner.  At  nine  he  was 
introduced  to  the  president  of  the  Royal  Academy,  old  Sir  Martin  Archer 
Shee,  who  prophesied  that  he  would  conquer  a  kingdom  in  art,  and  he  at  once 
began  to  draw  from  the  round.  At  eleven  he  entered  the  Academy  Schools, 
an  unparalleled  feat  which  has  never  been  repeated;  and  at  seventeen  he  ex- 
hibited his  first  historical  picture.  Of  him  it  cannot  be  said  in  the  words  of 
Gloucester  (Richard  iii): 

"Short  summers  lightly  have  a  forward  spring," 

for  he  belied  the  proverb.  His  enthusiastic  parents  swept  all  difficulties  from 
his  path;  the  highest  authorities  looked  favorably  upon  him;  his  companions 
stood  in  a  row  to  applaud  him.  Handsome,  graceful,  and  well  made,  full  of 
health  and  fire  and  energy,  he  speedily  became  popular.  Rossetti  likened 
him  to  an  angel  with  hands  outstretched  to  help  his  friends  (notably  Hunt) 
in  the  outset  of  their  career,  the  outset  which  is  so  difficult. 

At  twenty  he  was  already,  in  a  way,  the  head  master  of  Pre-Raphaelitism, 
and  his  'Isabella's  Banquet,'  if  it  brought  him  no  glory,  gave  him  at  least  the 
reputation  and  the  halo  of  persecution.    At  twenty-three  his  'Huguenot'  com- 

[455] 


34  MASTERS     IN    ART 

pletely  reinstated  him  in  public  opinion.  Fame,  indeed,  this  time,  stretched 
over  him  her  protecting  hand,  and  held  it  over  his  head  for  forty-five  years  as 
unweariedly  as  the  Muse  of  Cherubini  in  M.  Ingres's  extraordinary  picture. 
Fame  was  in  love  with  him.  The  English  loved  him  for  his  talent,  it  is  true, 
but  also  for  his  handsome  English  face  and  frank,  adventurous,  manly  bear- 
ing; for  his  skill  in  sports,  for  he  was  a  good  shot,  a  good  rider,  and  an  excel- 
lent salmon-fisher.  Such  qualities  might  do  anything.  As  a  Pre-Raphaelite 
he  was  welcomed  by  the  multitude.  When  he  deserted  Pre-Raphaelitism  to 
paint  sentiment  and  expression  he  was  followed  by  a  larger  crowd.  He  gave 
up  emotional  subjects  for  portraiture,  and  the  crowd  increased  and  lauded 
him  to  the  skies.  His  success  would  not  have  been  less  had  he  adopted  any 
sort  of  art  theories  and  rejected  all  his  former  opinions.  Like  the  tyrant  of 
Samos,  he  might  cast  his  ring  into  the  sea  and  he  would  find  it  again  inside  a 
fish.  He  revealed  himself  as  a  portrait-painter  in  the  picture  of  Mr.  Arm- 
strong's daughters,  and  HoU  and  Herkomer  were  of  no  account  beside  him. 
The  handsomest  carriages  in  London  stood  at  his  door  in  Palace  Gate.  Offi- 
cial honors  were  showered  upon  him.  He  was  made  a  baronet,  and  he  would 
have  been  the  Artist  Laureate  if  there  were  one.  And  this  is  not  all:  he  knew 
the  deepest  joys  of  popularity.  The  reproductions  of  his  sentimental  pictures 
made  him  the  guest  and  the  friend  of  the  humblest  homes,  and  the  same  man 
who  had  won  the  plaudits  of  Swinburne  and  Ruskin  and  the  most  finely  cul- 
tured men  of  his  day  for  his  interpretation  of  a  tale  from  Boccaccio  has  seen, 
at  the  end  of  his  career,  his  'Bubbles'  placarded  on  the  walls  of  the  United 
Kingdom  by  a  famous  soapmaker.  He  knew  of  this,  and  openly  rejoiced  over 
it;  he  owned  it  without  false  modesty,  and  with  the  gay,  hearty  frankness  with 
which  he  exclaimed  in  the  studio  of  Munro  the  sculptor,  when  some  one  re- 
marked upon  the  red  mark  above  his  eye,  "There  are  spots  in  the  sun,  you 
know!" 

Let  us  consider  these  spots  in  the  sun.  The  man  who  excited  such  enthu- 
siasm in  England  was,  aesthetically,  the  least  English  of  the  artists  of  his  coun- 
try. Across  the  Channel  the  most  popular  painter  is  he  who  approaches  most 
nearly  the  French  ideas  of  art.  His  whole  career  could  be  thus  defined,  his- 
torically and  aesthetically:  "From  Ruskin  to  Pear's  Soap;  or.  The  Stages  of  a 
Perversion;"  and  this  alienates  him  from  the  English  ideal  as  it  is  set  forth 
in  books.  He  said  that  the  first  duty  of  a  painter  is  to  paint,  and  it  is  a  strange 
saying  from  English  lips.  He  said  again,  "A  fool  may  be  a  great  artist."  He 
did  not  choose  subjects  specially  for  their  morality;  he  did  not  strain  after 
exact  truth  of  detail;  and  he  openly  allowed  that  the  corners,  the  accessories, 
the  edges  of  the  picture,  should  all  be  sacrificed  to  the  center.  More  than  that, 
he  painted  the  fact  rather  than  the  idea,  and  tried  to  please  the  eye  rather  than 
to  touch  the  soul,  in  an  avowed  effort  to  please  the  upper  classes.  And  he 
succeeded,  although  he  expressed  less  than  any  other  artist  the  individuality 
of  the  English  character.  Let  the  partisans  of  the  theory  which  makes  art  an 
emanation  of  life  explain  his  success  as  they  may,  it  will  be  easy  enough  for 
us  to  do  so. 

Millais's  art  responds  to  a  taste  which  is  no  more  Latin  that  it  is  Anglo- 

[450] 


MILLAIS  35 

Saxon;  it  responds  to  a  taste  common  to  certain  minds  among  all  nations.  He 
satisfies  the  world  in  general  —  the  lovers  of  illustrations,  who  go  straight  to 
the  sentimental  or  amusing  pictures  at  an  exhibition  and  pass  by  aesthetic 
thought  or  moral  meaning.  He  charms  all  the  superficial  sight  of  the  English 
mind,  as  Burne- Jones  will  charm  all  refined  minds  in  France  when  he  is  better 
known  there.  Therefore  another  boundary  must  be  found  for  aesthetic  pref- 
erences than  a  frontier  line,  and  another  origin  than  that  of  atmosphere  or 
soil. 

What  are  the  characteristics,  then,  of  this  much  admired  art.?  In  the  first 
place,  its  subjects.  Millais  devotes  himself  to  such  touching  scenes  as  have 
made  Paul  Delaroche  and  M.  d'Ennery  famous  amongst  us.  He  tells  the 
story  of  a  fireman  placing  the  children  he  has  saved  in  the  arms  of  their 
mother;  of  a  prisoner's  wife,  who  comes  to  set  her  husband  free,  handing  the 
order  of  release  to  the  gaoler;  and  he  has  not  forgotten  the  dog,  who  leaps 
round  his  master's  legs  to  show  his  joy.  He  shows  us  the  'Return  from  the 
Crimea:'  a  wounded  soldier,  resting  after  the  war,  with  his  wife  and  children; 
the  children  are  playing  with  toys,  amongst  which  are  a  bear,  a  cock,  and  a 
lion;  the  whole  Eastern  Question  is  in  your  grasp.  Then  all  the  famous 
couples  pass  before  us  for  whom  a  tragic  fate  is  in  store:  'The  Huguenot,' 
'EflRe  Deans,'  'Lucy  of  Lammermoor,'  'The  Black  Brunswicker.'  There  is 
'The  Proscribed  Royalist'  concealed  in  the  hollow  of  a  tree,  and  kissing  the 
hand  of  his  Puritan  lady,  who  has  brought  him  food.  There  is  a  Spaniard, 
disguised  as  a  monk,  rescuing  his  lady-love  from  prison  and  from  the  stake. 
Then  he  enlivens  himself  with  a  domestic  incident,  'My  First  Sermon,'  or  an 
historical  incident,  'The  Boyhood  of  Raleigh.'  To  make  such  every-day  sub- 
jects acceptable,  they  must  be  treated  with  genius,  and  Millais  does  not  so 
treat  them.  His  imagination  was  neither  very  great  nor  very  wide.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  he  has  not  looked  long  for  his  subject,  but  it  could  be  wished  that 
he  had  looked  longer,  or  at  least  that  he  had  found  it.  Whenever  he  paints  a 
lover's  duet  he  places  his  heroes  standing,  exactly  in  the  same  position,  face  to 
face, —  'The  Huguenot,'  'The  Black  Brunswicker,'  'The  Wandering  Knight,' 
'Yes,' and 'No,'  'Eflfte  Deans;'  they  are  all  in  the  same  attitude.  And  he  does 
not  atone  for  this  uniformity  by  any  great  energy  of  action.  The  attitudes  are 
correct,  the  masses  well  balanced,  the  parallel  lines  are  well  broken,  and  there 
is  nothing  to  find  fault  with.  But  there  is  nothing  new  in  them.  Looking  at 
'Effie  Deans, 'or  'Lucy  of  Lammermoor,'  as  far  as  originality  goes  we  might 
regret  Paul  Delaroche;  in  the  finish  of  his  stone  backgrounds  and  his  foliage  he 
equals  M.  Robinet,  and  M.  Bouguereau  in  his  truthful  coloring.  But  these 
details  are  painted  with  the  same  prominence  as  the  principal  figure;  they 
come  as  far  forward,  and  thus  all  aerial  perspective  is  destroyed.  Composi- 
tions like  the  child  with  the  soap-bubbles  call  for  no  criticism  excepting  in  the 
drawing;  they  are  lacking  in  all  that  makes  a  work  of  art  great;  and  in  their 
conception,  as  in  their  subject,  the  dolls  M.  Muller  used  to  show  us  filling 
their  papa's  watch  with  cream  were  as  pleasing.  This  is  genre-painting  in 
all  its  foolish  and  triumphant  conceit;  the  style,  that  is,  which  apes  great  art; 
the  upstart  from  the  genre-pictures  which  imagines  itself  to  be  more  full  of 

[457] 


36  MASTERS    IN    ART 

life  than  the  Academy  and  more  noble  than  the  mere  study,  which  is  jealous  of 
the  one  and  contemptuous  of  the  other,  and  is  beneath  them  both.  This 
genre,  the  mediocrity  of  art,  was  Millais's  first  characteristic.  The  second 
was  exactness.  Once  his  portrait  or  his  scene  is  composed  he  drew  the  gesture 
of  his  model  exactly  and  without  exaggeration.  His  historical  and  legendary 
personages  look  so  simple,  so  well  defined,  so  like,  that  they  might  be  people 
you  know.  They  really  are  portraits.  Most  of  these  tragic  lovers  were  painted 
from  well-known  people,  from  relations  or  good-natured  friends.  His  famous 
'Huguenot'  represents  General  Lempriere;  the  young  lady  in  'The  Black 
Brunswicker'  is  the  portrait  of  Charles  Dickens's  second  daughter,  Mrs. 
Perugini.  In  *  The  Boyhood  of  Raleigh '  he  painted  his  own  sons ;  in  the  famous 
'Northwest  Passage,'  Trelawney,  the  intrepid  explorer,  sat  for  the  head  of  the 
old  sailor.  These  pieces  are  generally  well  painted,  with  a  bright  coloring 
that  is  not  overstrained,  and  in  harmony  which  does  not  quite  rise  to  refine- 
ment. 

Millais's  portraits  show  us  his  temperament  and  his  art  at  their  best.  Re- 
stricted to  a  portrait,  his  composition,  which  is  commonplace  in  historical  and 
genre  subjects,  becomes  interesting  and  almost  original.  His  'Fresh  Eggs,' 
simply  the  portrait  of  his  charming  daughter,  in  a  Pompadour  costume,  look- 
ing for  eggs  in  a  hen-house,  shows  admirable  arrangement.  Still  better  is 
the  portrait  of  the  Misses  Armstrong  sitting  round  a  table  at  whist,  under  an 
enormous  mass  of  azaleas,  where  the  skill  of  the  composition  can  be  unre- 
servedly admired.  Everything  in  this  picture,  even  the  rather  affected  title, 
'Hearts  is  Trumps!'  adds  to  the  charm  of  the  three  faces  —  one  full  face,  the 
others  in  profile  or  three-quarters.  His  portrait  of  the  'Yeoman  of  the  Guard' 
is  almost  a  masterpiece.  His  model  is  ugly,  but  there  he  stands.  His  har- 
monies are  violent,  but  they  stop  short  of  becoming  discordant.  Millais  had 
a  theory  of  his  own  to  excuse  his  brilliant  coloring:  he  said  that  these  were  the 
original  tones  in  the  pictures  of  the  masters  which  we  now  admire,  when  we 
see  them  toned  down  by  the  other  great  masters  called  Time  and  Varnish. 
Without  going  into  an  examination  of  this  hypothesis,  the  painter's  violences 
of  color  in  the  'Yeoman  of  the  Guard'  and  in  'Chill  October'  may  be  for- 
given him  for  the  harmonies  into  which  they  melt. 

Of  Millais's  three  manners, the  Pre-Raphaelite  applied  to  historical  scenes; 
the  romantic  applied  to  genre-painting;  and  portraiture,  the  last,  was  his  hap- 
piest inspiration.  But  his  reputation  has  been  made,  not  by  his  portraits,  but 
by  his  genre-pictures.  Therefore,  when  the  whole  of  his  work  is  passed  in  re- 
view for  definition.  Sir  J.  E.  Millais  would  appear  as  a  librettist  in  painting. 
Like  libretto-writers  of  opera,  he  did  not  create  his  subjects;  he  chose  well- 
known,  rather  hackneyed,  themes.  He  expressed  himself  in  a  sonorous  and 
intelligible  language;  he  did  not  display  such  faculty  of  invention  that  he 
could  be  said  to  reshape  them,  nor  such  mystery  of  form  that  he  could  be  said 
to  enrich  them;  and  he  accepted  the  applause  of  the  boxes  and  of  the  pit  with- 
out a  distinct  understanding  whether  it  was  bestowed  on  the  subject  or  its 
author,  on  the  story  or  its  narrator,  on  the  book  or  the  music. 

[458] 


M  ILLAIS  37 

Cfje  iS^orfes  of  iHiUais 


DESCRIPTIONS    OF    THE    PLATES 


<SIR    ISOMBRAS    AT    THE    FORD* 


SIR  ISOMBRAS  AT  THE  FORD '  is  surely  one  of  the  best  pictures  that 
Millais  ever  painted,  and,  for  that  matter,  it  is  one  of  the  most  interesting 
pictures  that  has  been  made  in  England  in  the  last  hundred  years.  Its  mak- 
ing marked  the  beginning  of  the  change  in  Millais's  manner.  Although  de- 
tails are  studied  as  much  as  in  the  earlier  work,  there  is  a  stronger  grasp  of 
effect.  There  is  something  very  original  about  the  composition,  although  it 
is  hardly  a  composition  at  all  —  just  an  excision  from  life.  Again,  this  is 
hardly  the  word;  for  the  picture  is  evidently  enough  a  made-up  affair.  Yet 
the  figures  come  on  to  the  stage  naturally,  without  too  obvious  arrangement. 

The  first  sketch  for  the  picture  is  in  existence,  and  it  is  interesting  to  note 
how  much  the  artist  has  improved  his  idea  in  the  finished  work.  Millais  was 
essentially  a  realist,  and  the  longer  he  worked  on  a  thing  the  better  it  got. 
Notably  fine  things  in  the  picture  are  the  knight's  head  —  all  the  heads,  in 
fact  —  and  the  painting  of  the  further  shore.  The  armor  is  excellently  well 
done,  and  the  flags  in  the  foreground  show  all  Millais's  skill  in  detail.  The 
horse,  on  the  other  hand,  can  hardly  be  called  a  success. 

The  picture  was  bought  by  Charles  Reade,  who  wrote  pleasantly  on  paint- 
ing in  "Christie  Johnstone."  It  was  not  very  favorably  received  at  first  by 
either  public  or  critics,  but  has  lately  come  to  be  looked  on  as  one  of  Millais's 
finest  works.  For  some  reason  the  picture  aroused  the  ire  of  the  many.  Fred- 
eric Sandys  caricatured  it.  The  horse  was  John  Ruskin  personified  as  an  ass. 
Millais  himself  bestrode  him  as  the  knight.  Dante  Rossetti  was  the  little  girl, 
and  Holman  Hunt  clung  on  behind  as  the  little  boy. 

<THE    YEOMAN    OF    THE    GUARD*  PLATE  11 

''TT^HE  BEEF-EATER'  is  one  of  the  best  of  Millais's  later  works;  for  while 
X  the  facture  is  rather  sleazy,  there  still  remain  the  interesting  and  effective 
pose  and  the  brilliant,  if  rather  glaring,  color.  This  picture  created  quite  a 
sensation  in  the  Paris  Exposition.  It  was  painted  from  Major  Robert  Mon- 
tagu, a  fine  old  English  gentleman  who  was,  naturally,  not  himself  a  yeoman 
of  the  guard,  but  who  kindly  posed  for  Millais  on  the  occasion  of  this  picture. 
The  idea  of  the  picture  took  form  in  this  manner.  Millais  was  making  some 
studies  for  a  picture  at  the  Tower  of  London,  and  was  so  much  impressed  by 
the  picturesque  costume  of  the  yeomen  of  the  guard  that  he  determined  to 
paint  a  portrait  of  one  of  them. 

«THE  ORDER  OF  RELEASE"  PLATE  III 

THE  ORDER  OF  RELEASE,'  though  it  is  one  of  Millais's  early  Pre- 
Raphaelite  subjects,  looks  at  first  sight  more  like  his  later  work.     But 
when  one  comes  to  study  the  curiously  compact  and  crowded  composition 

[459] 


38  MASTERS    IN    ART 

one  perceives  certain  qualities  which  hardly  exist  In  the  more  diffuse  work  of 
later  years.  Some  of  the  pieces  —  the  expression  of  the  good  wife's  face,  for 
instance  —  are  rendered  with  all  Mlllais's  force  and  Intensity,  There  Is  some- 
thing almost  ludicrous  In  her  air  of  triumph  and  satisfaction. 

The  picture  was  severely  criticized  because  only  one  leg  of  the  released 
Highlander  is  seen.  The  same  criticism  was  made  of  the  male  figure  in  'The 
Huguenot.'  But  one  might  as  well  criticize  the  child  in  the  woman's  arms  be- 
cause only  one  arm  Is  to  be  seen.  Naturally  enough,  the  other  did  not  show. 
The  spirit  which  induces  such  criticism  Is  the  same  which  made  the  early 
Egyptians  put  two  eyes  In  a  profile  head,  because,  forsooth,  they  knew  men 
had  two  eyes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  one  can  see  the  other  leg  perfectly  well. 
The  picture  was  also  criticized  because  the  warder  had  released  his  prisoner 
before  he  read  the  order  of  release.  This,  again,  is  a  rather  puerile  comment, 
because  he  might  very  well  have  released  the  prisoner  on  merely  seeing  the 
well-known  outside  aspect  of  an  order  of  release,  and  later,  from  mere  curi- 
osity, have  taken  the  trouble  to  read  it;  or  he  may  have  read  it  first  and  then 
reread  it. 

There  are  some  good  bits  in  this:  the  warder's  head  in  profile-perdu,  and 
the  dog's  coat,  though  the  latter  is  rather  meticulous  in  treatment. 

•  PORTRAITOFJOHNRUSKIN'  PLATEIV 

THE  great  critic  in  his  coat  of  antique  cut,  his  side  whiskers,  and  his  curi- 
ous trousers  presents  a  vaguely  ridiculous  look  to  our  modern  eyes,  as  he 
stands  by  the  brawling  stream.  We  should  imagine  a  man  in  the  country  clad 
in  more  suitable  garb  for  roughing  it.  But  it  was  the  fashion  of  the  day  that  a 
man  should  dress  like  a  gentleman  wherever  he  went,  and  Ruskln  simply 
wore  the  clothes  he  thought  proper  to  his  station. 

The  portrait  is  a  remarkable  rendering  of  character.  After  seeing  it  one's 
mind  has  an  indelible  imprint  of  how  the  real  Ruskln  looked  and  stood.  It  is 
not  a  sympathetic  portrait,  perhaps,  but  one  feels  that  it  is  sincere.  The  brook 
and  the  background  are  painted  with  true  Pre-Raphaelite  fidelity. 

•  PORTRAITOF    W.E.GLADSTONE'  PLATEV 

THIS  portrait  was  quite  famous  in  its  day,  and  is  by  many  considered  the 
best  portrait  that  has  been  made  of  the  great  commoner.  It  was  painted 
in  an  inconceivably  short  time  —  Gladstone  himself  said  in  five  hours  and  a 
half — yet,  in  spite  of  this,  was  considered  a  great  success  by  the  statesman's 
friends.    It  is  interesting  to  compare  this  portrait  with  that  made  by  Lenbach,  i 

the  famous  German  painter.   Lenbach's  seems  the  better  drawn  — possibly  be-  I 

cause  he  is  said  to  have  worked  over  a  "Solar"  print.  It  is  perhaps  more  inci- 
sive in  character.  But  after  all,  Mlllais's  is  the  more  painter-like.  It  is  "made 
out  of  paint  "in  a  forthright  way.  The  character  of  the  great  statesman  is  well 
indicated;  the  huge  nose,  the  strong  chin,  the  thin  and  yet  sensitive  mouth, 
and  the  speaking  and  intelligent  eyes  are  understood  and  rendered.  While 
not  one  of  Mlllais's  great  works,  it  is  an  interesting  one. 

The  picture  was  painted  for  the  Duke  of  Westminster,  who  was  so  disgusted 

[460] 


MILLAI S 


39 


at  Gladstone's  stand  in  the  matter  of  "Home  Rule"  that  he  sold  the  Picture. 
It  is  now  in  the  collection  of  Sir  Charles  Tennant.    Sir  John's  son,  Mr.  J.  G. 
Millais,  speaks  of  it  as  "  probably  the  finest  modern  male  portrait  in  existence. 
This  is  estimating  the  portrait  altogether  too  highly. 


<THE    VALE    OF    R  EST' 


PLATE    VI 


THE  VALE  OF  REST'  is  said  to  have  been  Millais's  favorite  picture, 
and  it  has  its  qualities,  although  the  appeal  to  the  emotions  is  rather 
obvious.  It  marks  Millais's  transition  stage.  He  had  not  entirely  shaken  off 
his  Pre-Raphaelite  manner,  and  yet  he  was  making  an  effort  to  gain  a  broader 
sort  of  technique.  Ruskin  criticized  the  picture  by  saying  nuns  did  not  dig 
each  other's  graves;  but  he,  after  all,  was  not  omnisciem.  The  curiously 
shaped  cloud  in  the  sky  was  suggested  by  a  Scotch  superstition  that  a  cottin- 
shaped  cloud  in  the  sky  at  sunset  forebodes  death. 

Curiously  enough,  the  picture,  which  has  become  very  popular,  at  first 
shocked  people  not  a  little.  It  was  considered  horrible  (Punch  spoke  of 
"those  terrible  nuns")  because  the  seated  nun  is  supposed  to  have  a  premo- 
nition of  her  own  early  death  from  looking  at  the  cloud  in  the  sky.  The  pic- 
ture is,  indeed,  rather  sentimental,  rather  story-telling,  but  hardly  horrible,  one 
would  say.  On  the  other  hand,  a  grave  serenity,  that  is  hardly  sadness,  seems 
to  inform  the  whole  picture.  Millais  repainted  the  head  of  the  seated  nun  in 
his  studio  some  years  after  the  picture  had  been  exhibited.  It  is  ^  question 
whether  he  improved  it.  One  would  like  to  have  seen  the  earlier  head,  which, 
presumably  painted  outdoors,  must  have  had  a  verity  which  the  somewhat 
sweetened  countenance  of  the  present  nun  rather  lacks. 

Mr.  Spielmann  thinks  'The  Vale  of  Rest'  the  finest  picture  MiUais  ever 
painted.  While  it  is  an  extremely  interesting  picture,  it  is  not,  perhaps,  so  in- 
teresting as  some  of  Millais's  little  known  early  pictures,  'The  Return  of  the 
Dove,'  for  instance. 


•  OPHELIA" 


P  LATE    VII 


MANY  have  thought  the  'Ophelia'  to  be  the  finest  picture  which  Millais 
ever  painted,  and  surely  it  is  one  of  the  best  things  painted  in  its  period 
anywhere,  inside  England  or  out.  The  figure  floats  on  the  water  ma  rather 
impossible  way,  but  it  is  a  beautiful  way,  and  nothing  could  be  livelier  than 
the  dead  girl's  face.  This  face,  by  the  way,  was  painted  from  Miss  Lls^noi 
Siddal,  the  beautiful  model  discovered  by  Walter  Deverell  when  she  was  a 
milliner's  assistant.  She  also  posed  for  many  of  Rossetti's  pictures,  and  later 
married  him.  .         , ,.,,  . 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  difference  in  the  manners  of  Rossetti  and  Millais 
when  painting  the  same  type.  Rossetti  invariably  dwelt  on,  indeed  exagger- 
ated, the  long,  swelling  neck  and  the  full,  passionate  lips  of  the  beautiful  model 
He  painted  all  women  so;  or,  rather,  he  chose  women  who  had  somethmg  of 
these  characteristics,  and  then  exaggerated  just  those  qualities.  MiUais,  on 
the  other  hand,  has  made  Miss  Siddal  in  his  'Ophelia'  a  very  beautiful 
woman,  distinguished  and  pathetic  in  type,  but  in  no  way  abnormal.     In- 

[461] 


40  MASTERS     IN     ART 

deed,  the  abnormal  was  abhorrent  to  Mlllais's  healthy  mind.  Whenever  his 
early  pictures  look  "queer"  it  is  because  he  has  insisted  on  an  undeniable  fact, 
not  because  he  has  exaggerated  a  peculiarity. 

Apart  from  the  lovely  imagining  and  rendering  of  the  beautiful  dead  girl, 
there  are  other  admirable  qualities  to  note  in  this  picture.  The  different  kinds 
of  foliage  are  rendered  with  very  remarkable  skill  and  finish.  Indeed,  botanists 
have  said  that  the  foliage  and  flowers  were  painted  with  quite  botanical  ex- 
actness, and  this  is  a  very  difiicult  thing  for  an  oil-painter  to  accomplish.  It 
might  be  said  — indeed,  it  is  true — that  the  detail  is  too  much  insisted  on, 
that  it  is  overaccented;  but  it  is  surprising  how  well  the  effect  is  preserved, 
considering  this  extreme  detail. 

«AUTUMN     LEAVES'  PLATE    VlII 

*  AUTUMN  LEAVES'  is  just  the  sort  of  picture  a  young  man  might  paint; 
xV  that  is,  it  is  intense  and  searched  in  study,  but  the  design  is  rather  con- 
fused. The  faces  of  the  children  are  charming,  and  the  leaves  are  painted 
with  remarkable  care  and  realism,  but  one  seems  to  feel  the  lack  of  a  definitely 
arranged  composition.  At  the  same  time,  the  picture  exhibits  remarkable 
qualities.  The  color  is  handsome,  and  John  Ruskin  spoke  of  the  painting  as 
being  the  first  true  representation  of  twilight  that  had  ever  been  painted.  After 
all,  as  in  all  Millais's  early  compositions,  the  interest  begins  with  and  comes 
back  to  the  faces.  Those  are  the  really  remarkable  pieces,  and  are  painted 
with  an  intensity  of  realism  leading  to  mysticism,  the  sort  of  thing  that  had  not 
been  seen  before  in  England. 

The  English  critic,  Alfred  Lys  Baldry,  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  this  pic- 
ture "is  now  rightly  admired  as  the  most  fascinating  of  the  works  which  he 
produced  during  his  life.  .  ,  .  When  it  was  first  exhibited  it  was  not  prop- 
erly understood  by  the  general  public.  .  .  .  Mr.  Ruskin  praised  it  with  gen- 
erous enthusiasm,  and  not  only  ranked  it  as  one  of  the  monumental  canvases 
of  the  world,  but  declared  that  not  even  to  Titian  could  be  assigned  a  place 
higher  than  that  which  Millais  had  reached  by  this  triumphant  achievement." 

♦LORENZO     AND     ISABELLA'  PLATE    IX 

THE  subject  of  this  picture  is  taken  from  Keats's  poem.  Holman  Hunt 
had  tried  to  interest  Millais  in  Keats's  poems,  and  had  read  bits  aloud 
to  him.  Millais,  like  a  healthy  young  Briton  of  his  day,  had  scoffed  at  him; 
but  later,  getting  the  book,  he  was  overcome  by  Keats's  charm  and  determined 
to  paint  this  picture.  The  scene  represents  the  lovers  Lorenzo  and  Isabella 
at  table  with  the  cruel  brothers  of  Isabella.  Lorenzo  was  a  poor  clerk  em- 
ployed by  the  rich  relations  of  Isabella.  He  loved  Isabella  and  she  him.  The 
brothers  discovered  their  love  and  killed  Lorenzo.  Isabella  put  his  head  in  a 
vase  and  covered  it  with  earth,  and  from  this  grew  a  beautiful  plant  —  a 
rather  gruesome  tale,  which  all  Keats's  poesy  has  hardly  saved  from  being 
ridiculous. 

It  is  not  hard  to  understand  why  this  picture  was  so  much  criticized  at  its 
first  appearance.    There  is  something  ludicrous  in  the  outstretched  leg  of  the 

[462] 


MILLAIS  41 

wicked  brother  who  kicks  the  dog,  while  the  lovers  themselves  are  rather 
puling  and  mawkish.  At  the  same  time,  the  picture  has  remarkable  merits, 
especially  when  one  reflects  that  it  was  painted  by  a  boy  of  nmeteen  Ihe 
study  of  character  in  the  various  heads  surpassed  anythmg  that  had  been 
done  in  English  art  since  Hogarth,  and  the  whole  picture  was  made  with  an 
honesty  and  sincerity  not  at  all  common  in  the  art  of  that  day  Madox  Brown, 
the  forerunner  of  the  Pre-Raphaelite  school,  had  rather  laughed  at  Rossetti  s 
'praise  of  the  work  of  the  young  Millais,  but  on  seeing  this  picture  he  was  con- 
quered, and  generously  admitted  that  it  was  a  remarkable  work. 

PLATE    X 
«  THE    BLIND    GIRL  ' 

THE  BLIND  GIRL '  is  one  of  Millais's  finest  efforts.  Curiously  enough, 
the  head  of  the  girl  suggests  some  of  Bastien-Lepage's  work,  made 
much  later  but  having  something  of  the  same  intensity  and  intention.  The 
technical  method  of  the  two  men  was  rather  different.  Bastien  s  painting 
was  much  as  he  had  learned  to  do  in  the  schools,  only  with  more  intensity 
than  the  ordinary  man's.  Millais,  on  the  other  hand,  was  obliged  to  develop 
his  technique  by  himself,  with  what  assistance  he  got  from  Holman  Hunt,  so 
that  his  handling  is  rather  less  professional  looking  than  that  of  Bastien. 

The  picture,  also,  has  this  in  common  with  Bastien,  that  the  interest  cen- 
ters on  one  face.  So  remarkably  well  made  is  the  blind  girl's  face  that  she 
holds  our  attention  despite  the  almost  meticulous  detail  of  the  rest  of  the  pic- 
ture When  however,  we  allow  our  eyes  to  wander  about  the  picture  we  hnd 
many  surprising  bits  of  detail:  the  girl's  dress,  for  instance,  which  is  "carried 
to  a  remarkable  degree.  The  landscape  background  is  quite  charmingly  made. 
Interesting  details  are  the  birds  hopping  around  in  the  grass  which  look 
singularly  large.  There  is  probably  some  obscure  allusion  to  the  dawn  ot  hope 
in  the  rainbow  behind  the  figures. 

A      LIST    OF    THE    PRINCIPAL    PAINTINGS    BY    MILLAIS 
IN     PUBLIC     COLLECTIONS 

BIRMINGHAM  ART  GALLERY:  The  Widow's  Mitej  The  Blind  Girl  (Plate  x) 
—  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society:  Portrait  of  the  Earl  of  Shaftesbury  — 
Christ  Church,  Oxford:  Portrait  of  the  Right  Hon.  W.  E.  Gladstone -Corpora- 
tion OF  Manchester:  Portrait  of  Bishop  Eraser,  Portrait  of  Queen  Alexan^^rawh^^^^ 
Princess  of  Wales -Corporation  of  Oldham:  Portrait  of  T.  O.  Barber  _  Fitzvvll- 
lAM  Museum,  Cambridge:  The  Bridesmaid -Garrick  Club,  London  :  Portrait  of 
Sir  Henry  Irving- G.Halloway  College,  EghaM:  The  Princes  in  the  Tower;  The 
Princess  Elizabeth -Institute  of  Civil  Engineers  London:  Portrait  of  S.r  John 
Fowler-LEEDS  Art  Gallery:  Childhood;  Youth;  Manhood;  Age;  Music;  Art- 
LiVERPOOL  Art  Gallery  :  Lorenzo  and  Isabella  (Plate  ix);  The  Martyr  ot  the  So  way  - 
Manchester  Art  Gallery:  Autumn  Leaves  (Plate  viii);  A  Flood;  Victory  O  Lord- 
NatTonaL  Gallery,  London:  Yeoman  of  the  Guard  (Plate  ii);  Portrait  of  the  Right 
Hon  WE.  Gladstone;  The  Vale  ofRest  (Plate  vi)- National  Portrait  Gallery 
London:  TheEarlofBkconsfield;  Thomas Carlyle;  William  WilkieCollins;^^^^^^^^^ 
-National  Gallery  of  Canada:  Portrait  of  the  Marquis  of  Lorne- New  South 
WaleI  Gallery,  Australia:  The  Captive  -  Oxford  University  Gallery:  Portrait 
of  Thomas  Combe;  Return  of  the  Dove  to  the  Ark_ST.  Bartholomew's  Hospital, 

[4(13] 


42  MASTERS    IN    ART 

London:  Portrait  of  Sir  Joseph  Paget;  Portrait  of  Luther  Holden  —  Shakespeare  Mu- 
seum, Stratford-on-Avon  :  Portrait  of  Lord  Ronald  Gower  —  Tate  Gallery  :  Ophelia 
(Plate  vii);  The  Knight-Errant;  The  Northwest  Passage;  Mercy;  St.  Bartholomew's  Day; 
St.  Stephen;  A  Disciple;  Speak,  Speak;  The  Order  of  Release;  The  Boyhood  of  Raleigh; 
A  Maid  offering  a  Basket  of  Fruit;  Charles  i.  and  His  Son  in  the  Studio  of  Van  Dyck; 
Equestrian  Portrait  —  University  of  Glasgow:  Portrait  of  Rev.  John  Caird — Uni- 
versity of  London:  Portrait  of  George  Grote. 


iHillats  33i6Iiograp!)p 

A     LIST    OF     THE    PRINCIPAL    BOOKS    AND     MAGAZINE     ARTICLES 
DEALING    WITH    MILLAIS 

ARMSTRONG,  W.  Sir  J.  E.  Millais.  London,  1883  — Baldrv,  A.  L.  Sir  John 
xX  Everett  Millais.  London,  1902  —  Millais,  J.  G.  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Sir  John 
Everett  Millais.  London,  1899  —  Monkhouse,  C.  British  Contemporary  Artists.  New 
York,  1899  —  RusKiN,  J.  Notes  on  Some  of  the  Principal  Pictures  of  Sir  John  Everett 
Millais.  London,  1886 — The  Millais  Gallery.  Boston,  1878  —  Illustrated  Biographies 
of  Modern  Artists.    Paris,  1882. 

MAGAZINE     ARTICLES 

AMERICAN  ARCHITECT,  1896:  S.  Beale;  Sir  John  Millais.  1898:  S.  Beale 
X\.  The  Religious  Art  of  Millais.  1898:  Sir  John  Millais  at  Burlington  House  —  Art 
Journal,  1898:  R.  A.  M.  Stevenson;  Sir  John  Everett  Millais  —  The  Bookman,  1900: 
A.  Hoeber;  Millais  —  The  Fortnightly  Review,  1896:  J.  and  E.  R.  Pennell;  John 
Everett  Millais,  Painter  and  Illustrator  —  The  Magazine  of  Art,  Vol.  ii.  :  H,  S. 
Wilson;  J.  E.  Millais,  R.  A.  —  The  Monthly  Illustrator,  1896:  R,  R.  Wilson; 
Sir  John  Millais  —  The  Portfolio,  1871:  S.  Colvin;  John  Everett  Millais  —  Review 
OF  Reviews,  1895:  Sir  John  Everett  Millais,  A  Character  Sketch  —  Scribner's  Mag- 
azine, 1896:  C.  Monkhouse;  Sir  John  Millais,  Bart.,  P.  R.  A.  —  The  Spectator,  1898: 
Millais  at  the  Academy  —  Zeitschrift  fur  Bildende  Kunst,  1898-99:  Sir  John  Millais, 

[464] 


MASTERS    IN     ART 


YouCan'tbc  tooled  on  fC^i^gTl  and  YouSaveovcrHall 


You  can't  be  fooled  on  "Come-packt"  Sectional  Furniture  for 
it  comes  "in  the  white"  and  the  finished  sections  are  /ieaJv  to  put 
together.  Yon  see  just  what  you  get— and  you  get  UUAK  i  tK 
sawed  WHITE  OAK  every  time.  No  chance  to  disguise  defects  or 
substitute  cheap  woods.  A  few  minutes  only  needed  to  fasten  the 
sections  and  apply  whatever  stain  you  select— we  i^'^lu'le  it  tree. 
It's  a  pleasure  and  satisfaction  to  KNOW  you  have  the  best 
obtainable. 

"It  comes  in  SECTIONS,  not  in  pieces"  so  that  it  is  only  an 
evenings  pastime  to  put  together  and  finish — no  tool  work  needed, 
QUARTER  sawed  WHITE  OAK  is  used  throughout— rich 
in  beautiful  flake  and  grain.  Your  choice  of  seven  finishes.  ONE  HUN- 
DRED other  splendid  pieces,  from  $3  up,  all  sold  under  our  absolute 
GUARANTEE  to  satisfy  YOU  or  your  money  refunded. 


■^  ou  save  over  one  half  because  we  manufacture  and  ship 
direct  to  you  at  lower  prices  than  dealers  pay.  Why  pay 
middlemen's  profits,  store  rents,  clerks'  wages,  etc.,  as  well 
as  high  freights  and  costly  packing — all  add  to  the  PRICE, 
not  the  value  of  store  furniture.  Try  our  way  ONCE — that's 
the  proof.    "Your  money  back  if  you  say  so." 


$7. SO  with    *  cushions 

WRWE  TODAY  tor  beautilnl  calaloo.  free.  INTERNATIONAL  MFG.  CO..  643  Edwin  St..  Ann  Arbor.  Mich.   | 


Picture  Puzzles 


Good  subjects,  ingeniously  cut. 
Send  $i.oo  for  sample,  isopieces. 
MYSTIC  PICTURE  PUZZLE  CO. 
West  Medford  Massachusetts 


A  PAINTING 

worth  a  frame  is 
certainly  deserving 
of  good  light 

Let  us  send  you  information  about  our  in- 
dividual picture  reflectors,  made  to  give  in  the 
private  house  the  same  perfect  lighting  your 
paintings  would  receive  in  the  best  appointed 
art  gallery.  The  use  of  our  reflector  on  one 
painting  has  invariably  led  to  orders  for  light- 
ing other  paintings. 


I.  P.  FRINK 


551  Pearl  Street 


NEW  YORK 


BRAUN'S 
CARBON 
PRINTS 


FINEST  AND  MOST  DURABLE 
IMPORTED    WORKS     OF    ART 


ONE  HUNDRED  THOUSAND  direct 
reproductions  from  the  original  paintings 
and  drawings  by  old  and  modern  masters  in  the 
galleries  of  Amsterdam,  Antwerp,  Berlin,  Dres- 
den, Florence,  Haarlem,  Hague,  London,  Ma- 
drid, Milan,  Paris,  St.  Petersburg,  Rome, 
Venice,  Vienna,  Windsor,  and  others. 

Special  Terms  to  Schools. 


BRAUN,  CLEMENT  &  CO. 

256  Fifth  Ave.,  bet.  28th  and  29th  Sts. 
NEW  YORK  CITY 


In  answering  advertisements,  please  mention  Masters  in  Art 


MASTERS     IN     ART 


MASTERS  IN  ART 

BACK    NUMBERS    AND    BOUND    VOLUMES 


MASTERS  IN  ART  was  established  in  January,  1900.  As  will  be 
seen  from  the  following  list  of  painters  and  sculptors  covered  by 
t  le  first  eight  years,  the  bound  volumes  form  a  fairly  complete  reference 
library  of  Art.     The  subjects,  in  order  of  publication,  are  as  follows  : 

-"'^        ^  VOLUME  I  (1900)  treats  of  Van  Dyck.  Titian,  Velasquez, 

Holbein,  Botticelli,  Rembrandt,  Reynolds,  Millet,  Giov.  Bellini, 
Murillo,  Frans  Hals,  and  Raphael. 

VOLUME  II  (1901)  treats  of  Rubens,  Da  Vinci,  Durer, 
Michelangelo  (Sculpture),  Michelangelo  (Paintimj),  Corot, 
Burne-Jones,  Ter  Borch,  Delia  Robbia,  Del  Sarto,  Gains- 
borough, and  Correggio. 

VOLUME  III  (1902)  treats  of  Phidias,  Perugino,  Holbein's 
Drawings,  Tintoretto,  Pieter  de  Hooch,  Nattier,  Paul  Potter, 
Giotto,  Praxiteles,  Hogarth,  Turner,  and  Luini. 

VOLUME  IV  (1903)  treats  of  Roraney,  Fra  AngeUco,  Wat- 
teau,  Raphael's  Frescos,  Donatel- 
lo,  Gerard  Dou,   Carpaccio,  Rosa 
Bonheur,    Guido  Reni,  Puvis  de 
Chavannes,    Giorgione,  Rossetti. 

VOLUMP:  V  (1904)  treats  of 
Fra  Bartolommeo,  Greuze,  Dii- 
rer's  Engravings,  Lotto,  Land- 
seer,  Vermeer  of  Delft,  Pintoric- 
chio.  The  Van  Eycks,  Meissonier, 
Barye,  Veronese,  and  Copley. 

VOLUME  VI  (1905)  treats  of 
Watts,  Palma  Vecchio,  Madame 
Vigee  le  Brun,  Mantegna,  Char- 
din,  Benozzo  Gozzoli,  Jan  Stcen, 

,.     ^., Menilinc,   Claude   Lorrain,    Ver- 

-«L  ^"-^   HivDiNci  rocchio,  Raeburn,  and  Fra  Filip- 

-«c  J  po  Lippi. 

VOLUME  VII  (1906)  treats  of  Stuart,  David,  Bocklin,  Sodoma, 
Constable,  Metsu,  Ingres,  Wilkie,  Ghirlandajo,  Bouguereau,  Goya,  and 
Francia. 

VOLUME  VIII  (1907)  treats  of  Sir  Thomas  Lawrence,  Ruisdael, 
Filippino  Lippi,  La  Tour,  Signorelli,  Masaccio,  Teniers  the  Younger, 
Tiepolo,  Delacroix,  Jules  Breton,  Rousseau,  and  Whistler. 
VOLUME  IX  (1908)  treatsofEdouard  Manet,  Carlo  Crivelli,  Nicolaas 
Maes,  Lord  Leighton,  Duccio,  George  Inness,  Wni.  M.  Hunt,  El  Greco, 
Albert  Moore,  Moretto,  Sir  John  Everett  Millais,  and  Bastien-Lepage. 

; \ '      '^  HALF- 

THE  CLOTH  BINDING  is  a  brown  art  buckram  with  heavy  beveled  boards.  mouoo 

side  and  back   stamped   in   frosted  and   burnished  grold,  from  designs   by  Mr. 

B.  G.  Goodhue,  and  gilt  top. 

THE  HALF-MOROCCO  BINDING  is  in  green,  with  green  and  gold  marbled  paper  sides  and  end  papers,  gold 

tooled  back,  designed  by  Mr.  B.  G.  Goodhue,  gilt  top. 

pT>  jr^p"  O     All  single  numbers  are  20  cents  each,  post-paid  in  the  United  States;  Canadian 

postage,  i  cents  extra ;  foreign  j)ostagc,  .5  cents  extra.    No  reduction  for  complete  sets. 

Bound  voliiiiics  are  $3.75  each  for  cloth;   $4.25  each  for  half-morocco,  express  ])repaid. 

Bates  &  Guild  Co.   42  chaimcy  st.  Boston,  Mass. 


In  answering  advertisements,  please  mention  Masters   in   Art 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recaU. 


LD  2lA-60m-3,'65 
(F23368l0)476B 


General  Library     _ 
University  of  California 
Berkeley 


YD  3?fe33 

U.C  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


0051366710 


r 


5  5  ^7  f  ^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  UBRARY 


THE 

MADONNA 

By  Philip  L.   Hale 

A  CRITICAL  analysis  of  the  way  the  master  painters  have  pictured 
the  Madonna,  together  with  a  short  historical  sketch  of  the  devel- 
opment of  this  great  religious  art  subject.  The  author,  Mr.  Philip  L. 
Hale,  himself  a  painter,  is  one  of  the  ablest  writers  on  art  in  this  country. 
The  text  is  illustrated  by  twenty  full-page  plates,  a  list  of  which  is  given 
below.  These  plates  are  of  the  highest  quality,  and  in  point  of  depth 
and  richness  of  color  and  clearness  of  detail  are  not  surpassed  by  any 
reproductions  of  the  same  size.  The  page  measures  8  x  11  inches. 
No  pains  have  been  spared  to  make  this  a  desirable  acquisition  to  eveiy 
art  lover's  library ;  as  a  gift-book  it  is  especially  appropriate. 

LIST     OF     PLATES 

The  SismrE  Madoxva Raphael  Maoonha  with  the  Cherries    ....    TmAir 

Royal  QaMtry^  Dretden  Imperial  OaUery^  Vienna 

Madonva  of  the  Chair Raphael  Madokxa  of  the  Pesabo  Family   ...   Trxav 

Pitti  Palac«t  Fhrencs  Church  of  the  Frari,  Venice 

Madokna  op  the  House  of  Alba     .     Raphael  The Natititv  (" The  Night*')  .     .    .  CoBmBoeio 

The  Hertnitaffe,  St.  Petershivrg  Royal  Gallery,  Dretden 

ViBoiw  OF  the  Rocks  .    .      Leokabdo  da  Vixci  The  Meteb  Madokna         Holbeih  the  Yovtmoer 

Louvre,  Paris  Grand-Ducal  Palace,  Darmstadt 

The  AflscMpnoN  of  the  VmoEH     .     .     .    TmAV  The  Madokka  o*'  Castelfbanco      .   .  Gioboione 

The  Academy,  Venice  Castelfranco  Cathedral 

St.  Anne,  the  Viboik,  akd  the  Christ*  The  Madonka  of  the  Two  Tbeeb  .    .    .  Beluki 

Child Leonardo  da  Vikci  Aoadenw,  Venice 

Louvre,  Paris  The  Vow  op  Louis  XIII Inobeb 

The  Viboik  Adobivo  THE  CHBisr-CHiLD  Cathedral,  Montauban 

CORBEOOIO        CoBOKAHOW  of  THE  ViBOIK     ....  BoTTICELU 

Ujizi  Gallery^  Florence  UJud  Gallery,  Florence 

Madokva  of  THE  Sack Del  Sabto  Madohva  and  Child  with  Two  Anoeis, 

Church  of  the  AnnunsiaUif  Florence  Fra  Filippo  Lifpi 

The  Ihmacitiate  CovcEpnoy     .    .     .      Mubillo  Uffizi  Gallery,  Florence 

Louvre,  Paris  The  Madonna  and  Three  Dominican  Saints, 

ViBoiN  AND  Child Cbivelu  TtnoLo 

Brera  Gallery,  Milan  Church  of  the  Gesuati,  Veniee 

Price,  boated  and  ea^press  prepaid,  $1,00 

BATES    &    GUILD     COMPANY 

Publishers 
42  CHAUNCY  STREET,  BOSTON,  MASS. 


In  aniwering  advertisements,  please  mention  Masters  in  Art 


